19.iii.08 Pain, Greed, and Pride

I skipped class today.

My back pain through the night was so extreme I hardly slept; the soaking baths, yoga, Tiger-Balm and naproxen sodium regimen prescribed by my physician was simply not enough to bring relief, and by 6:45 a.m. I realized that I was too exhausted to make the drive in to Lancaster and direct a class.

So I called the Registrar and the Academic Dean and proposed a class session discussion topic: "Who is the third monster in Farmer Giles of Ham by Tolkien?" The first is the deaf and stupid giant, the second is the dragon Chrysophylax: who is the third?

This I "thought a dreadfully easy chestnut", to quote another Tolkien story (The Hobbit, ch. V). I guess to me the use "who" was a give-away, rather than "what".

The consistent answer, however, was not a "who" (a person) but a "what" (in this case an idea, feeling, or attitude):

"The third monster is greed," one student boldly asserted in beginning the narrative of the discussion. At the end of the narrative though, this writer also notes, "the discussion thing didn't work too well because no one really had a clue what the third monster was."

However, this writer hit on the crux of the matter: "Maybe it's the old king's greed." But the "maybe" is important here. "Surety you crave", to quote yet another Tolkien story (LotR, Bk V, ch. 10).

Another writer offers the possibility: "the treasure is the third monster. The treasure or gold or whatever it happens to be can make Giles or the king monsters in their lust for this treasure."

Right. This is definitely moving in the right direction.

"...another consideration we had was about the "monster" being Giles' greed."

Giles' greed?

Here we come to the learning portion of this exercise. On the one hand, I could just declare: "this is the third monster," and you might learn something about structural analysis, and you might learn nothing, and you might learn that I am simply an amazing bore. But none of that would have the joy of discovery that will come when you solve this riddle -- and I believe it has a single, definitive answer.

"The third monster is Greed and Pride," writes another student. Wait -- wouldn't that be two monsters? "This is because Farmer Giles is so caught up with himself and thinking how awesome he is, that he neglects his kingdom and his people." But when he is Farmer Giles, what is "his" kingdom and "his" people?

"The third monster is pride and greed, and he overcame them by siding with the dragon instead of the asshole king," opines a fourth writer. Now, we're getting somewhere. Let's consider deeply the degree of assholishness of Augustus Bonifacius Ambrosius Aurelianus Antoninus Pius et Magnificus, dux, rex, tyrannus, et basileus Mediterranearum Partium.

"The Story of Farmer Giles of ham [sic] has two obvious monsters, the Giant, and the Great Dragon Chrysphlax [sic] Dives. The third monster can be interpreted as Giles['] own Greed and pride. He even went so far as to tell the king to trade his crown for the sword Tailbiter," suggests a fifth. I'd like to see the specific evidence of Giles' pride and greed, and I'm particularly interested to be directed to the details of this supposed trade.

A sixth writer reports: "The story of Giles Ham clearly states two of the three monsters in the book. The two monsters are the Giant and the dragon hrysophylax [sic] Dives. The Third Monster in the story is vague. It is Farmer Giles['] pride and greed. He wents so far as to tell the king to trade his crown for the sword Tailbiter."

These two writers' reports are far too similar for comfort. Back in the day, we would call this cheating. Come to think of it, we still do. Consider, particularly, the last fifteen words of each writer's piece. Awfully close, don't you think? As in, identical.